http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2016/04/a-review.html.
the book costs 140.00, but i bought it.
i agree with dr. de vienne's review.
Yes, that's Schulz and de Vienne's last book. It is very good. Very accurate. You should read it. I'm old. Almost 90. I spent my life within the Watchtower and teaching history at two large universities. I know good work when I see it. Separate Identity is superior to anything ever written about the Watchtower.
But you will have to make up your own mind. The few pages on Amazon do not take you to the richness of new research found in their book.
http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2016/04/a-review.html.
the book costs 140.00, but i bought it.
i agree with dr. de vienne's review.
Ruby, I think you're confusing authors and books. If you mean Schulz and de Vienne's book, Separate Identity, you should know that it is a far more detailed book than Chryssides' book. It is a return to original sources. It's much less expensive, about twenty-seven dollars, and more thoroughly researched.
If you are so committed to the view that Russell was a closet Adventist that you don't want to be challenged by solid research and facts, then by all means don't read it. If you want to see the historical evidence and be taken to documents you have probably never seen, then you should read it.
Russell did not believe or teach Adventist doctrine. He taught Literalist doctrine. In American that was called Age-to-Come. Her history blog is here: http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/ . You can read that for free. You may want to start with http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2016/04/1874-75-allegheny-pittsburgh-adventist.html .
Schulz and de Vienne dissect Russell's doctrine and take you to its sources, the books he read, the people he met. The consider the years from 1871 to 1876 in detail. These were the years during which Russell developed his doctrinal mix. They show you the two competing prophetic systems, Adventism and Literalism. They define the difference through references to contemporary publications. You should challenge yourself.
Don't want to pay? Try inter-library loan.
http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2016/04/a-review.html.
the book costs 140.00, but i bought it.
i agree with dr. de vienne's review.
http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2016/04/a-review.html.
the book costs 140.00, but i bought it.
i agree with dr. de vienne's review.
Insight vol 2:
Time of Birth, Length of Ministry. Jesus evidently was born in the month of Ethanim (September-October) of the year 2 B.C.E., was baptized about the same time of the year in 29 C.E., and died about 3:00 p.m. on Friday, the 14th day of the spring month of Nisan (March-April), 33 C.E. The basis for these dates is as follows:
Jesus was born approximately six months after the birth of his relative John (the Baptizer), during the rule of Roman Emperor Caesar Augustus (31 B.C.E.–14 C.E.) and the Syrian governorship of Quirinius (see REGISTRATION for the probable dates of Quirinius’ administration), and toward the close of the reign of Herod the Great over Judea.—Mt 2:1, 13, 20-22; Lu 1:24-31, 36; 2:1, 2, 7.
His birth in relation to Herod’s death. While the date of Herod’s death is a debated one, there is considerable evidence pointing to 1 B.C.E. (See HEROD No. 1 [Date of His Death]; CHRONOLOGY [Lunar eclipses].) A number of events intervened between the time of Jesus’ birth and Herod’s death. These included Jesus’ circumcision on the eighth day (Lu 2:21); his being brought to the temple in Jerusalem 40 days after birth (Lu 2:22, 23; Le 12:1-4, 8); the journey of the astrologers “from eastern parts” to Bethlehem (where Jesus was no longer in a manger but in a house—Mt 2:1-11; compare Lu 2:7, 15, 16); Joseph and Mary’s flight to Egypt with the young child (Mt 2:13-15); followed by Herod’s realization that the astrologers had not followed his instructions, and the subsequent slaughter of all boys in Bethlehem and its districts under the age of two years (indicating that Jesus was not then a newborn infant). (Mt 2:16-18) Jesus’ birth taking place in the fall of 2 B.C.E. would allow for the time required by these events intervening between his birth and the death of Herod, likely in 1 B.C.E. There is, however, added reason for placing Jesus’ birth in 2 B.C.E.
Relationship to John’s ministry. Further basis for the dates given at the start of this section is found at Luke 3:1-3, which shows that John the Baptizer began his preaching and baptizing in “the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar.” That 15th year ran from the latter half of 28 C.E. to August or September of 29 C.E. (See TIBERIUS.) At some point in John’s ministry, Jesus went to him and was baptized. When Jesus thereafter commenced his own ministry he was “about thirty years old.” (Lu 3:21-23) At the age of 30, the age at which David became king, Jesus would no longer be subject to human parents.—2Sa 5:4, 5; compare Lu 2:51.
According to Numbers 4:1-3, 22, 23, 29, 30, those going into sanctuary service under the Law covenant were “from thirty years old upward.” It is reasonable that John the Baptizer, who was a Levite and son of a priest, began his ministry at the same age, not at the temple, of course, but in the special assignment Jehovah had outlined for him. (Lu 1:1-17, 67, 76-79) The specific mention (twice) of the age difference between John and Jesus and the correlation between the appearances and messages of Jehovah’s angel in announcing the births of the two sons (Lu 1) give ample basis for believing that their ministries followed a similar timetable, that is, the start of John’s ministry (as the forerunner of Jesus) being followed about six months later by the commencement of Jesus’ ministry.
On this basis, John’s birth occurred 30 years before he began his ministry in Tiberius’ 15th year, hence somewhere between the latter half of 3 B.C.E. and August or September of 2 B.C.E., with Jesus’ birth following about six months later.
http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2016/04/a-review.html.
the book costs 140.00, but i bought it.
i agree with dr. de vienne's review.
http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2016/04/a-review.html.
the book costs 140.00, but i bought it.
i agree with dr. de vienne's review.
Dr.R. M. de Vienne is not a 'he.' The R. stands for Rachael. She lives across the Columbia River from me, and I occasionally meet her for coffee and talk. She knows her stuff. I would have been proud to have had her as a student.
The errors in Chryssides' book seem quite minor, especially for a first edition of a book of this type. What appealed to me is the lack of drama. It's straight-forward reporting of what is. You see places where he disagrees personally with Witnesses, but he didn't write a rant, wasn't interested in making wild statements that sometimes characterize similar books.
Somewhere earlier someone made a comment about knowing all there is to know about Witnesses. That translates as "all I want to know." I was baptized in 1948 and served in various capacities. I still learn things. If you're not interested in learning, that's fine. I am.
http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2016/04/a-review.html.
the book costs 140.00, but i bought it.
i agree with dr. de vienne's review.
http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2016/04/a-review.html
the book costs 140.00, but i bought it. I agree with Dr. de Vienne's review. It won't be for everyone, but if you're into researching Witnesses, this is a book for you.
i'm 16 and it seems like most the people on this forum are adults.
i would think since most teenagers have tablets/smartphones there would be more on here but maybe not?
it would be nice to meet some other young people.
hi people,.
i want as much data as possible on the effect of the internet on the time captured by the cult.. please answer the three following questions about yourself or about someone you know (for example, if your parents or grandparents were jw's and left).
1) were you raised as a jw, or did you convert?.
hi people,.
i want as much data as possible on the effect of the internet on the time captured by the cult.. please answer the three following questions about yourself or about someone you know (for example, if your parents or grandparents were jw's and left).
1) were you raised as a jw, or did you convert?.
1) Were you raised as a JW, or did you convert?
Convert
Still nominally a Witness. Left mentally in 2005.
Fifty-seven years. [Yes, I’m older than dirt.]
